4 Nov
2010
4 Nov
'10
3:14 p.m.
On Nov 4, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Hannes Hirzel wrote:
Actually the Glamour API could be considered to be an
internal DSL to
describe browsers. I assume that a forth and five iteration are
necessary to make it more user friendly. That is the reason why I did
not pursue Glamour this May. I thought instead of going for Glamour I
can just go through the effort of learning the ToolBuilder builder DSL
-- which in the end is not more difficult either.
but glamour is not comparable with toolbuilder.
Now do you have all the polymorph widgets described as toolbuilder spec?
Because this is the problem.
A note aside: Maybe I push the idea of DSL too much
here. The question
is: where do we talk about an API and where does the DSL idea start?
However --- though there are alot examples -- even more example will
help and I recently enjoyed trying out some of them in the
Moose-Glamour-Image.
--Hannes
On 11/4/10, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote:
no ooooooooooooo
Don't limit yourself show us your errors
your errors are coool
Glamour API should be better :)
Stef
On Nov 4, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Benjamin wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Ouups :s
I'll try to open my both eyes before sending a mail now :)
Thank you
Ben
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev